This is a study of Epicurus garden in Athens in the 300´s bce, and the method of rehabilitation applied in the garden of Alnarp today at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science. The study aims to pinpoint areas of comparison in methods of healing in a garden environment, in Epicurus garden versus the rehabilitating garden of Alnarp. To make this comparison I have split my analysis into four parts, the conversational therapy, the hierarchy, the garden and its community, and finally the isolation from society. This is a qualitative study, and methods used is, amongst others, hermeneutics.The essay ends with a final discussion of the finds, which conclude that although very different contexts in both time and space, it is easy to find similarities between the two.

Le traité Péri Parrhêsias (PHerc. 1471) de Philodème de Gadara représente une source majeure pour la compréhension de la parrhêsia épicurienne. Malgré l’état fort dégradé du papyrus, cependant contrebalancé par les ébauches d’éditions transmises par Henry, l’éditeur actuel, et par les résultats de la recherche bibliologique effectuée par White, une interprétation thématique du manuel Péri Parrhêsias, Sur la franchise, a été rendue possible, de telle sorte qu’elle peut désormais servir de fondement pour examiner la place de la parrhêsia dans les Actes des apôtres. En comparant la manière dont Luc utilise la parrhêsia avec celle de Philodème, il apparaît que la première s’appuie sur la seconde, tous les thèmes philodémiens étant présents dans quasiment toutes les péricopes lucaniennes. Néanmoins, Luc adapte la parrhêsia à son propre projet narratif, tout en lui donnant un rôle stratégique pour décrire l’expansion de l’évangile jusqu’aux extrémités de la terre. / The Peri Parrhêsias treatise (PHerc. 1471) of Philodemus of Gadara represents a major source for the comprehension of Epicurean parrhêsia. In spite of the extremely deteriorated condition of the papyrus, nevertheless compensated by the draft editions transmitted by the current editor, Henry, and by the results of the bibliological research effectuated by White, a thematic interpretation of the manuel Peri Parrhêsias, On frankness, has been made possible, in such a way as to provide henceforth a basis to examine the role of parrhêsia in the Acts of the Apostles. When comparing the manner in which Luke employs parrhêsia with that of Philodemus, it is apparent that the first relies on the latter, all of the Philodemus themes being present in practically all of the Lucan pericopae. However, Luke adapts the parrhêsia to his own narrative project, all while giving it a strategic role in describing the expansion of the Gospel unto the end.